Their own worst enemy

Last night, when I was thinking about developing a post about how [many] Confederate celebrationists have essentially made things worse for themselves for not having acknowledged different historical facts in their efforts to “honor” the Confederate soldier, this was posted by Brooks Simpson. What a fine example of how these celebrationists have gone down the wrong path. For one, with the objective of honoring the common Confederate soldier, is it really necessary to spread false history about others (Grant, for example)? With the objective of honoring the common Confederate soldier, is it necessary to continue the same historically incorrect arguments about the details of the Emancipation Proclamation, while also ignoring the fact that Lincoln was making direct appeals to the border states regarding the matter of slavery BEFORE the EP? With the objective of honoring the common Confederate soldier, is it really necessary to bring in contemporary politics into the argument? There is much more at hand here as well, but…

My answer to each of these questions is “no”. There is enough there in the story of Virginia’s Confederate soldiers to pay respects to the valor, courage, and sacrifice of those soldiers without resorting to the garbage history displayed in the resolutions passed by the Virginia Division. The word “dignity” comes to mind here, and yet I see no defense of the dignity of the common soldier in the resolutions.

The stories of my Confederate ancestors vary (and yes, none owned slaves). As I have pointed out, I don’t believe that all embraced the Confederacy. They may have worn gray uniforms at different points, but belief in “the Cause” is subject to debate. Of those who went willfully (initially), I suspect that most were likely committed to the thought that they were enlisting to “defend their homes”, to “repel the oncoming invasion”, and maybe even believed that states’ rights were in jeopardy, but I remain quite aware that their motivations and that of many of those in high places in the Confederate government were not always one in the same. This is the line that I draw when looking back at my Confederate ancestors; a line between the motivations of the men (as they understood things) and those of the government.

I admire the valor, courage, and sacrifice of the common Confederate soldier. I respect their decision to do what they thought was right, then. I marvel at the stories of their lives in those four short years.

YET, I know what underlying factors were at play, not with the common soldiers, but in the motivations of the Confederacy. I acknowledge that the Confederate government was a government conceived in the interests of preserving slavery. The Southern states felt their power waning in national government as slavery was not being allowed to expand, but was slowly being limited. I acknowledge that high officials took initiative into their own hands, without regard for the common Southerner’s voice.

Perhaps then, it would be best to make clear the differences between honoring the common soldier and honoring the government. Do we honor the common soldier or shall we honor the soldiers only as devices of the government? I prefer to focus on the common soldier. Perhaps this would have been a better avenue to take when Southerners with an interest in their Confederate ancestors felt that their ancestors were being made out to be “boogeymen” and/or no longer acceptable in the greater American story. Knee-jerk reactions such as what we see in the set of resolutions, filled with bad history, and poor taste… indeed, they are their own worst enemy… and sadly, they do not impact themselves alone.

The SCV long ago gave up any pretense that it was founded as, and is supposed to remain, an apolitical organization devoted to the “good name” of the Confederate soldier. Kirk Lyons’ involvement over the last ten years or so is proof enough of that.

Oh, I know that the SCV of today is definitely not the same organization as when it was founded. The argument is that times are different and require an adjustment to policy… of course, all at the expense of it’s own origins.

Regarding fighting “bad history” with spewing even worse history. Are you meaning the SCV reaction to the media? If so, I definitely get what you are saying.

Sure. Confederate partisans argue that there exists a common, force-fed view of the War that is oversimplified, lacks balance, and tends to belittle white Southerners. And to a certain extent, they’re right.

The problem is that they fight this by engaging in their own distortions, lies and pettiness that obscures the worthwhile goal of introducing rational thought and perspective. Part of the reason for that, is that this “discussion” isn’t fundamentally about the War. It’s about today…so in the end, their efforts aren’t really about the historical record as such.

I guess what troubles me about the statement in question is the drive to prove slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. As if we must work our way back in time to lay some fundamental blame or justify actions. The minute after that mortar fired over Fort Sumter, the underlying causes became academic topics.

We should be focused on effects, not causes. As such, I cannot understand why the SCV does not showcase the many ex-Confederates who reconciled and contributed to the United States during and after reconstruction. But listening to the SCV, you’d think James Longstreet had horns and a tail.

Great points Mr. Moore, What you have pointed out is so important as we go into then next 5 years remembering the CW. I would love to see all such events be as inclusive as possible so that everybody can learn more about this period of History. I just don’t want to see these events used to bash the South her soldiers or those of us who want to honor their memory.

The biggest fact that is overlooked is that not all Virginians supported the Confederacy. Some, like my ggg grandfather, William Fitzgerald of Nelson County were imprisoned and died in support of the Union. Read his letter to Abraham Lincoln on the website for his view of sentiments in Virginia on slavery and the Confederacy in the midst of the War (1863). One of his sons did indeed fight for the Union but another son, my gg grandfather, fought for the Confederacy.

[…] make the point that those who are most vocal in honoring their Confederate ancestors are actually doing their credibility a lot of harm by making false and non-sequitur historical claims, and by broad-brush assumptions about their […]

[…] make the point that those who are most vocal in honoring their Confederate ancestors are actually doing their credibility a lot of harm by making false or entirely irrelevant historical claims (Lincoln was a segregationist! Grant owned […]